Russia/Ukraine from Another Perspective (Relaunch Part Deux)

484,644 Views | 9120 Replies | Last: 4 hrs ago by YouBet
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
I didn't say all territory. I said the South. Pre-2022 is the best Russia can ask for, in my opinion, that Ukraine would ever accept. Personally, I hope Ukraine gets more, but time will tell what will happen.

Ukraine needs to actually be given the tools to succeed, and not slow-rolled aid that's too little, too late. That's my opinion, though.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
I didn't say all territory. I said the South. Pre-2022 is the best Russia can ask for, in my opinion, that Ukraine would ever accept. Personally, I hope Ukraine gets more, but time will tell what will happen.

Ukraine needs to actually be given the tools to succeed, and not slow-rolled aid that's too little, too late. That's my opinion, though.


Also not going to happen. The only outcome is current borders plus or minus 50 meters (probably literally). That is the reality. There is zero reason for Russia to give anything up.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I tend to agree with you. But one thing Ukraine absolutely has to get is a NATO presence. That's the only thing that assures lasting peace. Otherwise Russia just takes another bite at the apple later.
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
I didn't say all territory. I said the South. Pre-2022 is the best Russia can ask for, in my opinion, that Ukraine would ever accept. Personally, I hope Ukraine gets more, but time will tell what will happen.

Ukraine needs to actually be given the tools to succeed, and not slow-rolled aid that's too little, too late. That's my opinion, though.


Also not going to happen. The only outcome is current borders plus or minus 50 meters (probably literally). That is the reality. There is zero reason for Russia to give anything up.
Then the war goes on, most likely.

People do not seem to want to grasp that this is not up to Russia or the US. It's up to the invaded party, Ukraine. If they decide to keep fighting, they are not unreasonable to do so, either.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
I didn't say all territory. I said the South. Pre-2022 is the best Russia can ask for, in my opinion, that Ukraine would ever accept. Personally, I hope Ukraine gets more, but time will tell what will happen.

Ukraine needs to actually be given the tools to succeed, and not slow-rolled aid that's too little, too late. That's my opinion, though.


Also not going to happen. The only outcome is current borders plus or minus 50 meters (probably literally). That is the reality. There is zero reason for Russia to give anything up.
Then the war goes on, most likely.

People do not seem to want to grasp that this is not up to Russia or the US. It's up to the invaded party, Ukraine. If they decide to keep fighting, they are not unreasonable to do so, either.


I grasp and have no issue with Ukraine continuing to fight. I respect it. My only issue is us continuing to fund it in perpetuity without goals. If you are getting my tax dollars then I'm attaching conditions.

And the reality is that without us putting boots on the ground and going all-in this thing is a stalemate. And I think we all agree that we don't want our troops there or going all-in. So that means negotiating a truce with conditions.

It's time for that now.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fka ftc said:

Which is saying the same thing. Why are you always so dense on trying to say "nuh uh, you said these words and these words are different even though they say the same thing".

Preventing NATO encouragement by establishing a buffer zone by way of securing additional territory aka a land grab are all part of the same.

You just want to try and "score a point" and fail to even remotely comprehend what others are saying and what you are saying.

Is it just jealousy or hate that drives you?
Horse*****

No it is not.

One - tell NATO to stay away.

Two - absorb an entire country

Glad you've decided to move the goalposts for a world record 47billionth time, though. Congrats on that.
Ag with kids
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:

fka ftc said:

Wow, how about lifting all sanctions, cash payments, agreement by NATO to not admit new members, etc. And we would have, especially with Biden, given them everything they wanted.


So completely reward Russia for their unprovoked aggression?
He likes to negotiate with terrorists apparently.
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
I didn't say all territory. I said the South. Pre-2022 is the best Russia can ask for, in my opinion, that Ukraine would ever accept. Personally, I hope Ukraine gets more, but time will tell what will happen.

Ukraine needs to actually be given the tools to succeed, and not slow-rolled aid that's too little, too late. That's my opinion, though.


Also not going to happen. The only outcome is current borders plus or minus 50 meters (probably literally). That is the reality. There is zero reason for Russia to give anything up.
Then the war goes on, most likely.

People do not seem to want to grasp that this is not up to Russia or the US. It's up to the invaded party, Ukraine. If they decide to keep fighting, they are not unreasonable to do so, either.


I grasp and have no issue with Ukraine continuing to fight. I respect it. My only issue is us continuing to fund it in perpetuity without goals. If you are getting my tax dollars then I'm attaching conditions.

And the reality is that without us putting boots on the ground and going all-in this thing is a stalemate. And I think we all agree that we don't want our troops there or going all-in. So that means negotiating a truce with conditions.

It's time for that now.
Agreed with all except the truce part. It's been maddening to see the Biden administration have zero defined goals, and it seems they just want to barely let Ukraine do anything while promising them much more. I hate geopolitics in this way.
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
I didn't say all territory. I said the South. Pre-2022 is the best Russia can ask for, in my opinion, that Ukraine would ever accept. Personally, I hope Ukraine gets more, but time will tell what will happen.

Ukraine needs to actually be given the tools to succeed, and not slow-rolled aid that's too little, too late. That's my opinion, though.


Also not going to happen. The only outcome is current borders plus or minus 50 meters (probably literally). That is the reality. There is zero reason for Russia to give anything up.
Then the war goes on, most likely.

People do not seem to want to grasp that this is not up to Russia or the US. It's up to the invaded party, Ukraine. If they decide to keep fighting, they are not unreasonable to do so, either.


I grasp and have no issue with Ukraine continuing to fight. I respect it. My only issue is us continuing to fund it in perpetuity without goals. If you are getting my tax dollars then I'm attaching conditions.

And the reality is that without us putting boots on the ground and going all-in this thing is a stalemate. And I think we all agree that we don't want our troops there or going all-in. So that means negotiating a truce with conditions.

It's time for that now.
Agreed with all except the truce part. It's been maddening to see the Biden administration have zero defined goals, and it seems they just want to barely let Ukraine do anything while promising them much more. I hate geopolitics in this way.


Worst POTUS in modern history and arguably ever. However, I'm not sure what other position you can have other than negotiate a stand down at this point. Russia isn't going anywhere without a nuke exchange so what do you do?
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Teslag said:

Putin wanted all of Ukraine. Now he will get a sliver of it at the cost of most of his military left decimated and a permanent NATO presence in Ukraine right on his doorstep. And worse the world was shown that Russia is inept militarily and a paper tiger.


Sure but the only thing that matters now is how the current war gets resolved. And the only outcome is an agreement on current borders plus or minus a few meters.
I don't see that being sustainable or agreeable for Ukraine. It leaves them far too vulnerable. If any agreement is met, I'd say Russia has to abandon the South. Otherwise Ukraine will not likely go for it.


That is never going to happen. If that is a requirement, then it's a forever war and I would abandon this entire endeavor. I hope we are telling Zelensky that his absurd demand that Russia leave all territory is unrealistic.
I didn't say all territory. I said the South. Pre-2022 is the best Russia can ask for, in my opinion, that Ukraine would ever accept. Personally, I hope Ukraine gets more, but time will tell what will happen.

Ukraine needs to actually be given the tools to succeed, and not slow-rolled aid that's too little, too late. That's my opinion, though.


Also not going to happen. The only outcome is current borders plus or minus 50 meters (probably literally). That is the reality. There is zero reason for Russia to give anything up.
Then the war goes on, most likely.

People do not seem to want to grasp that this is not up to Russia or the US. It's up to the invaded party, Ukraine. If they decide to keep fighting, they are not unreasonable to do so, either.


I grasp and have no issue with Ukraine continuing to fight. I respect it. My only issue is us continuing to fund it in perpetuity without goals. If you are getting my tax dollars then I'm attaching conditions.

And the reality is that without us putting boots on the ground and going all-in this thing is a stalemate. And I think we all agree that we don't want our troops there or going all-in. So that means negotiating a truce with conditions.

It's time for that now.
Agreed with all except the truce part. It's been maddening to see the Biden administration have zero defined goals, and it seems they just want to barely let Ukraine do anything while promising them much more. I hate geopolitics in this way.


Worst POTUS in modern history and arguably ever. However, I'm not sure what other position you can have other than negotiate a stand down at this point. Russia isn't going anywhere without a nuke exchange so what do you do?
Russia isn't going to use nuclear weapons. They have no reason to.

Russia also does not seem to want to negotiate unless they start losing territory.

What do you do?

This is a highlight of the tragedy of this war. People keep acting like Ukraine is the unreasonable one that doesn't want to negotiate. Russia doesn't want to, either.
GAC06
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I guess the question is who is hurt more by a prolonged conflict and who can sustain it. I think we can outlast Russia easily if domestic politics don't save Russia
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Guess that's the disconnect. I don't care to outlast Russia.

If NATO wants to make a collective decision to back Ukraine in exchange for holding the current borders then go for it. But it should be NATO as a collective and not the US independently.

Separately, we shouldn't be the anchor of NATO anymore but that's a different thread.
Waffledynamics
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
YouBet said:

Guess that's the disconnect. I don't care to outlast Russia.

If NATO wants to make a collective decision to back Ukraine in exchange for holding the current borders then go for it. But it should be NATO as a collective and not the US independently.

Separately, we shouldn't be the anchor of NATO anymore but that's a different thread.
NATO as a collective has been supplying Ukraine. This has not been, by any stretch of the imagination, a US-only endeavor. Many countries, especially Eastern-European ones, have made outsized efforts to contribute.

The fable that this is a US only effort needs to die. It's not anywhere close to that.
Stat Monitor Repairman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
We coming up on two-years before you know it.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Negotiate to a truce/stand down sounds good but the devil is in the details; Zelensky faces being violently deposed in an interim 'peace' when word gets around further about the extent of Ukrainian social destruction;

Quote:

But as we said before, Zelensky can't stop nowhe risks being pilloried and lynched in public for the devastation he wrought to no end. So now, Zelensky has made it official that this coming week he will finally address the elephant in the room and clarify the new mobilization procedures, which everyone has been awaiting.

There are all sorts of rumors as to what this could entail, from major new age expansions like the 17 to 70 year old recruitment some have talked about, to the announcement of stricter female mobilization, to other more plausible things like expansion of TCC commissar powers, which will give commissars more legal sanction to mobilize people forcefully.
I'm not sure how true this is exactly, but what I've read suggests that, despite much of the highly coercive recruitment methods we've seen in videos on the net, Ukrainian commissars are not actually legally allowed to utilize some of the extrajudicial methods currently utilized. And allegedly, in some cases actual police can be called to 'shoo' the coercive commissars away. In short, they appear to operate in a sort of legal 'gray zone' which is often merely suffered through by unwitting citizens. This extends to powers of police like forcibly stopping citizens' cars on the road and detaining them, or barging into certain premises, especially private households. These are all areas commissarsas per this understandingare not legally justified in violating, yet they have been doing so simply out of desperation to get their quotas, and it's often been societally permitted just on account of no one wanting to rock the boat and be accused of sabotaging the war effort.
Quote:

We urgently need meat to the front: Zelensky promises to accelerate mobilization, military commissars will be allowed to grab people on the street, check documents and serve summonses. Now only the police have this right.
Zelensky has also already announced changes in the course of mobilization towards tightening the conscription.
Secretary of the Rada Committee on National Security Roman Kostenko said:
"Now there are a lot of questions from the TCC (commissars) and from those citizens whom they are trying to mobilize. In fact, the TCC does not have any rights to stop a person, give him a summons, demand documents from him. The police sometimes distance themselves from this so as not to be at the center of a scandal, so as not to attract a person," Kostenko said on Radio NV.
According to him, such an innovation will appear in the bill, which will be developed by the end of the year. Previously, it was announced by the head of the Servant of the People faction, David Arakhamia.
Also, military registration and enlistment office employees will be able to make audio and video recordings of their communications with people.
Hence rumor has it Zelensky's next decree will actually legally expand those powers for commissars to be able to have full-on police powers in detaining people on the street, asking for paperwork and ID and various things of that nature.
Quote:

"Our source in the OP said that the Office of the President is going to level the problem of shortage of weapons with mass mobilization. The Ukrainian Armed Forces spent too many resources on the Azov operation and now we need to strengthen mobilization so that in 2024 there will be reserves for a new counter-offensive."
Another rumor from Rezident_UA channel states that Zelensky plans to get his fill of fodder from a new mobilization and then throw Zaluzhny under the bus by blaming it all on him, in effect killing 'two birds with one stone'which would get rid of the albatross of Zaluzhny while washing Zelensky's own hands of the blood and sin.
Quote:

The Ukrainian TG channel "Resident" writes:
"Our source in the OP said that the President's Office wants to use the hatred of Ukrainians for the TCC against Zaluzhny, who personifies the Armed Forces of Ukraine, which means that all excesses in mobilization are his responsibility. Bankova is preparing a number of information campaigns that are supposed to discredit the commander-in-chief and then remove him "
They say that if you keep throwing people's anger at each other, one day it will catch up with everyone together. So eat each other up, be more active.
In general, all the theses we've read about Ukraine going into a defensive posture recently appear to be proving true. Zelensky's strategy seems to be "preservation mode" for now, with only some choice, token offensive action in areas where opportunity may present itself.
For Russia, the risk of a truce is that in such a period rapid nato membership could be pronounced for Ukraine, and why allow that to happen when they could now just run through the whole place in the spring or at least see the government toppled under pressure shortly?

Avdiivka is falling quickly now;

Quote:

Now let's briefly cover the most significant theater of Avdeevka.

As of today Russia has again made major significant advancements and breakthroughs here, one of which being unconfirmed for now, the other fully confirmed.

The confirmed is a major, total overrun of AFU positions in the Vinograd and Industrial sectors of southeast Avdeevka…

[url=https://substackcdn.com/image/fetch/f_auto,q_auto:good,fl_progressive:steep/https%3A%2F%2Fsubstack-post-media.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2F144af7db-819a-4d14-9342-8f9ebf38ce5d_1280x709.jpeg][/url]
Some of the exact details are yet to be fully ironed out, like which specific areas are gray zone versus total RF consolidation. However, we have video confirmations of Ukrainian troops retreating up Yasynovsky Lane. This is being hailed as a particular triumph for the troops on the ground because, for the ones who've been there since the beginning, the industrial sector was considered one of the most heavily fortified areas that have withstood their assaults for going on a decade.
Quote:

"The fact that our guys broke through the Vdyevka hole is a feat. I think I'm sure that this was the strongest part of the Ukrainian Defense Forces' defense along the entire front line. The proximity of our positions to the enemy's positions played an important role for us. However, this closeness was difficult for us. This has been an open wound since 2016, it has been going on. But we held out! And we went forward, broke through this important boundary! The opponent must understand the misfortune of his situation. Glory to the Russian soldier!" - Alexander Sladkov wrote earlier.

Anyway, the Russians are confirmed to be taking dramatically fewer casualties despite being largely on the offensive, an indicia of the desperate state of affairs for the UFA:



200 casualties a month isn't really 'bleeding Russia.' A neutral Ukraine with a new government committed to not joining Nato is going to have to happen at this point for the war to stop, imho. The EU trying to create a stronger/more flexible military force under Nato within a 'military Schengen zone' to disrupt the threat of Wilders/Orban's of the continent is funny (nominally pointed at Moscow), but also likely to keep this running/shooting going on. Ultimately, I am not sure what the lamentations about 'we just need to ship more materiel faster' are referencing? Europe/the US are not able to produce more, anytime soon.



Meanwhile, the expanded RU drone/missile inventory is continuing large scale attacks on infrastructure. Euro budgets strained toward the point of disaster;



FJB. None of this had to happen.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag with kids said:

fka ftc said:

Which is saying the same thing. Why are you always so dense on trying to say "nuh uh, you said these words and these words are different even though they say the same thing".

Preventing NATO encouragement by establishing a buffer zone by way of securing additional territory aka a land grab are all part of the same.

You just want to try and "score a point" and fail to even remotely comprehend what others are saying and what you are saying.

Is it just jealousy or hate that drives you?
Horse*****

No it is not.

One - tell NATO to stay away.

Two - absorb an entire country

Glad you've decided to move the goalposts for a world record 47billionth time, though. Congrats on that.


What goalposts were moved? Again, bizarre obsession noted. If you worry about NATO parking missiles and troops at your neighbors house, a neighbor whose house and land you used to own and still think you own in many respects and a neighbor who houses a number of your 'family', then to keep NATO from parking missiles you decide to take over your neighbors house and lot.

Those are literally two aspects of the same objective - to keep NATO as far away from Moscow as possible.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown

"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Ag with kids said:

Teslag said:

fka ftc said:

Wow, how about lifting all sanctions, cash payments, agreement by NATO to not admit new members, etc. And we would have, especially with Biden, given them everything they wanted.


So completely reward Russia for their unprovoked aggression?
He likes to negotiate with terrorists apparently.


Again, bizarre strawman. First, it's not me or the United States for that matter negotiating. Me observing and postulating how things may or would have played differently out is not me supporting something one way or the other.

If you cannot read what I posted and understand I was indicating what Russia would demand if they had captured Kiev somehow turns into you and Salute the Vaccine trying to indicate I am in favor of rewarding Russian transgression and negotiating with terrorist. Gives you really scores another W and crushed some skulls with another impossibly bad take on what was said.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown

"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
YouBet
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Waffledynamics said:

YouBet said:

Guess that's the disconnect. I don't care to outlast Russia.

If NATO wants to make a collective decision to back Ukraine in exchange for holding the current borders then go for it. But it should be NATO as a collective and not the US independently.

Separately, we shouldn't be the anchor of NATO anymore but that's a different thread.
NATO as a collective has been supplying Ukraine. This has not been, by any stretch of the imagination, a US-only endeavor. Many countries, especially Eastern-European ones, have made outsized efforts to contribute.

The fable that this is a US only effort needs to die. It's not anywhere close to that.


Yes, but it's been 2:1 US vs rest of Europe and was about to be 3:1 with latest $61B to Ukraine. (I've admittedly lost sight of that last new funding and can't remember if it got approved or not during all of our current power change in congress).

And on top of that we are the largest backer of NATO, financially. Which is dumb and illogical in 2023. Europes GDP is 15x that of Russia and has 4-5x the population. It's time to kick the baby bird out of the nest and let it fly. And if they don't want to collectively defend themselves then that is their decision.

We need to redirect all of that money in funding and securing our own backyard - the Western Hemisphere.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Quote:

why allow that to happen when they could now just run through the whole place in the spring



Only problem for Russia is that they have no ability to mount an offensive.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Not as funny:



I do think the winter weather there is more extreme than many of us in Texas might appreciate as far as the impact on military operations;

c-jags
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Teslag said:

fka ftc said:

Wow, how about lifting all sanctions, cash payments, agreement by NATO to not admit new members, etc. And we would have, especially with Biden, given them everything they wanted.


So completely reward Russia for their unprovoked aggression?


Unprovoked?

I'm pro-Ukraine and hope they get the better end of this but unprovoked is a complete lie. The entirety of this thread shows a fair bit of provocation.

Unjustified, sure. No argument.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Justification is in the eye of the war mongers, be they Putins, Bidens or others.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown

"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG








Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Sadly, Ukraine is going to collapse. The only question is when.

Russia spent all last winter to take one tiny village. Is now trying to do the same this winter. Yet Ukraine is once again about to fall*?












*except it's also not going to fall because Putin doesn't want all of Ukraine, so why would it be in danger of falling? Or so we are told.
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Teslag said:


Quote:

Sadly, Ukraine is going to collapse. The only question is when.

Russia spent all last winter to take one tiny village. Is now trying to do the same this winter. Yet Ukraine is once again about to fall*?

*except it's also not going to fall because Putin doesn't want all of Ukraine, so why would it be in danger of falling? Or so we are told.
No idea what your point is, as per usual. After the 'counter offensive' to retake Crimea, Russia is…well on their heals, or something I have read. But they are still a threat to conquer Poland etc. Ukraine as a regime is wholly committed to fighting Russia. (And importing luxury Porsche's).



Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Are wealthy ukrainians not allowed to drive what they wish?
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Teslag said:

Are wealthy ukrainians not allowed to drive what they wish?
Why are there wealthy Ukranians and in sufficient numbers to drive a car market?

One would think that with Zelensky asking the rest of the world to help save his most sovereign lands he would have depleted the accounts of "wealthy ukranians".

You see, you have fallen head over heels for corruption and grifting and fail to ever see that this was nothing more than a massive scam by one of the most corrupt countries in the history of the world - and then you want to blame things on Russians.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown

"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG




This whole war is such a pathetic scam/fraud between two disgusting teams/sides of oligarchs.

Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
When even Kim Dot Com uses "allegedly" you might want to take it with a massive boulder of salt.
Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG

Quote:

Why are there wealthy Ukranians and in sufficient numbers to drive a car market?

A truck carrying 4 or 5 vehicles is a car market?
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Record Luxory car market in Ukraine, which is too focused on the war to conduct elections.

Quote:

Despite the ongoing war in Ukraine, the sale of expensive luxury cars in the country is on the rise. Official figures indicate that luxury car brands like Porsche, Land Rover, and others sold more in the first half of this year than in previous years, as reported by Unser Mitteleuropa.

Compared to July 2022, auto sales have increased by 45 percent according to "UkrAutoprom." Brands like BMW (+107%), Mercedes (+11.7%), Audi (+19.1%), Porsche (+103%), and Land Rover (+314.3%) saw significant sales growth.
To be fair, Saint Zelensky said he would hold elections if America paid for it.
fka ftc
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Flagged for fake news. Our Ukrainian expert says one car carrier is not indicative of a market and this since there was only one picture of one car carrier then all the information must be false.

I feel bad for the poster who started such a thoughtful, well considered response.
"The absence of the word accountability is not the same as wanting no accountability" -unknown

"You can never go wrong by staying silent if there is nothing apt to say" -Walter Isaacson
nortex97
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG


Putting Dumb and Dumber in charge of our foreign policy for several years has been a tragic comedy, indeed.



Teslag
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Russia has zero ability to mount a real offensive. Until that changes, and it never will, a stalemate is the best they can hope for.





Besides. You've told us over and over again that Putin doesn't want all of Ukraine. Right?
First Page Last Page
Page 122 of 261
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.